Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To be honest I have meet many WAAC in roleplaying (We call them Munchkins) and they are pretty damm awfull.

The biggest difference of course is that the objetive of roleplaying is building a story with your group, not winning agaisn't anyone. Warhammer 40k, as a competitive wargame, has other focus, to win agaisn't your opponent. Yeah, there can be many other things like fun, hobby, etc... but the core principle of RPG and Wargaming are totally different, thats why I believe Munchkins are much worse in RPG than in Wargaming.

But to be honest, years ago, WAAC wasn't just one person that is very competitive and uses very strong lists. A WAAC was the kind of guy that cheats, forgots rules when it benefits him but never lets pass a fail from his opponent, etc... juts a disgusting person that as the WAAC tag points out, wants to win at all costs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Some people like breaking the game

some people love taking it easy

and ever step inbetween.

what everyone hates is when people complain about it.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?

ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.

()

I wanted to do something about it. I applied for the rules writing team when that thread was live, but it turned out they want people in England so I don't think I ever stood a chance.

I didn't even know that was a thing! Oh well. XD I help design wargames for the DoD (well, OAD in the USMC at the moment) and would love to have a go at my favorite hobby. I don't live in England though. :X

My only other issue was making creative rules on the spot. I like modifying what's already done for the most part to help the other person's vision be not crap. I tried that with my 7th edition fixes to Orks and Tyranids but a couple of posters thought they were clunky. Meh.

 Jaxler wrote:
I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.

Thats simply not true, pretty much any community that has players compete, either formally or informally has has those kinds of people in it. Ever get called a 'tryhard' in a video game?

What I can't understand is that people who attempt to force someone else to enjoy the game their way, as if it's the only way.

We can all coexist and have differing views. if you automatically dismiss another's argurment in hand, you by doing so invalidate yours.

vigorous Public discourse is good for the community. it's when it leads to personal attacks and namecalling that the benefits of that dialogue are lost.

I don't like WAAC or CAAC or BAAC OR SAAC players. but I would never tell someone how to play the game. every single one of us enjoys the game for similar or vastly different reasons.

I'm pretty sure that as a whole, everybody loves the game. whether it's fluff, mathammer, competition, or social.

I stopped playing after Rogue Trader and didn't play any games until 8th dropped. Killing my Squats was the reason.

Now i am having as much fun playing now as I did when I was 12.

If you don't have anything constructive to say just STFU and leave the discussion to the adults (who can have differing opinions) that enjoy playing, talking, etc..about the game/hobby.

This isn't directed to anyone in particular but more like a general statement

the_scotsman wrote:


Youre going to see these complaints more in Wargaming than, say, Video Gaming because in a video game if you pick a sub-optimal character, all it takes to "git gud" and play the right character is clicking a different character on the screen. In Warhammer that's a minimum 45$ investment and 5-10 hours of painting to get an optimal mini ready, and often by the time you finish your "git gud" choice it's already gotten nerfed into uselessness or some new thing has been added that eats it. I was told to "git gud" with my DE, and I went and bought a set of those Razorwing proxies everyone uses - by the time I got them painted and based on GW 40mms they had been doubled in points cost and so now they are worthless pieces of plastic on a shelf. Now if I want to "git gud" with my Dark Eldar, I have to play...nothing, they're an index army and they're completely outclassed by codexes.

This really. A big point for me is the amount of money and effort that is needed to optimize your army. Sure, if you go to a tournament you shouldn't complain if you get crushed by tournament-level lists. If you just go to your LFGS and expect to play a casual game with your favorite models you painstakingly built and painted and get tabled by turn 3 by someone with a much more optimized list, that's not fun. Communication is key here as well though, talk about what kind of units and list you want to use and if you see possible problems, ask about them beforehand. I personally don't mind taking on powerful stuff with my own lists (you want to put a Gargantuan Squiggoth in your 1000 pt. Ork list? Sure, go ahead, I'll bring my CC Dreads, Wulfen and Terminators and see who goes down first. Pity that game got canceled at the last moment ) but not everyone likes to do that.

I've been accused of being a WAAC player online a few times, which always confused me because my criteria for both creating and playing a fun game are pretty benign. In no particular order, they are:

1. Friendly competition. I see even tournament games as cooperative exercises, with each player honing their skills against the other. In my view, better opponent's make for better games, and it's hard to improve against someone worse at a game than you.
2. Meaningful choice. The player's decisions must matter, and they must be difficult. This is a major responsibility of the game designer, but players can also get involved by presenting tactical conundrums to their opponents.
3. Uncertain outcome. This is another worry for the game designer. If a game is designed well, the winner should not be predictable well in advance of its conclusion; Interested bird quickly if we're just going through the motions of grinding down to an inevitable result. (Note: random elements like dice are fine as long as they don't significantly diminish meaningful choice.)

Problems in 40k game balance deep in the past helped create a divide between players in the community. Is suspect it started with the variability in "homework" (i.e., calculation) players did before filling out their first armies. It sucks for a player to find out that a cool unit underperforms, and shameful to admit that one's trust in the designer was naive, especially after investing the effort to assemble and paint the miniatures. Instead of addressing the balance, GW has historically exacerbated the problem by offloading the "fix" to community policing (i.e., finger-pointing, name-calling, labeling witch hunts). I think the idea was to inundate the players with various game modes in the hopes that everyone can find their own echo chambers full of players with common grievances, leaving the designers largely unaccountable for the mess they made. (I would have given GW the benefit of the doubt, but it took them THIRTY YEARS to change their tune, and it took a massive community effort and fierce competition from companies started by disgruntled GW customers to put the right amount of fear in them.) I'm all for narrative variants and such, but regardless of game mode a player should be able to field any army and at least know that their decisions made more impact on the outcome than variations in power level between their army and that of their opponent.

I had hoped that the introduction of Open play, Narrative Play and Matched play would have eliminated these types of... conversations.

Subjectively, an individual is either an enjoyable opponent or they are not - you decide for your own reason(s).

/thread

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.

Thats simply not true, pretty much any community that has players compete, either formally or informally has has those kinds of people in it. Ever get called a 'tryhard' in a video game?

"casuals ruin overwatch"

"min maxing mtg, pathfinder, dnd, video games, other rpgs"

"economics of ultimates, and income (csg)"

"speed running, glitching finding and bounties"

yeah its pretty much everywhere in gaming. extreme ends of the try hard spectrum will never get along.

What I can't understand is that people who attempt to force someone else to enjoy the game their way, as if it's the only way.

Not advocating it but can speak as to why it happens:

Why do people play 40k even though its rules are generally considered some of the worst ever? Because you can always find people to play against.

There are a lot of rulesets that have great rules no one will touch because they can't find a game.

It is that right there - that they can't find a game.

So if a tourney player shows up and wants hard competition and the group he can play wiith is all narrative types, he's going to push more hardcore.

If there is a narrative player in a hard core competitive area, he has no one to play with really other than the hard core competitive people.

So they try to change the area to conform to what they want.

No one wants to bring a casual list to their store for a game and get roflstomped by the GT net lists that are running around.

Same as no one wants to bring a roflstomping list to the store and only have narrative types to play against.

I had hoped that the introduction of Open play, Narrative Play and Matched play would have eliminated these types of... conversations.

Same as above. If your region is all matched-play-only, open play and narrative play might as well not even exist. (that is the default play setting where i am as well, getting narrative games requires a lot of effort)

I don't know if anyone is a Dark Souls fan, but there was a similar movement in the community of that series. By the release of Dark Souls 3, there was such a huge outcry against invaders that From Software totally changed the multiplayer mechanics to make it so you could easily play online in coop mode and never have to worry about red invaders because of the sheer numerical advantages you would have. What was originally a key concept of the game - that you could play online, but others could either help or hurt you - became a hated mechanic for people who just wanted to play the whole game with the help of their friends without any kind of challenge or interruption. If you were a fan of the invasion mechanic, you were a bad person who only wanted to have their fun at the expense of the innocent coop casuals, as opposed to someone who was just enjoying an evocative and unique multiplayer mechanic.

I agree with the sentiment that someone truly worthy of the WAAC title is someone who cheats and exploits in order to win. Someone who thinks about the math behind what they're doing and builds lists intelligently may be kind of a min/maxer, but they're just playing the game to the best of their ability with the rules they've been provided. This is a game where two players compete against each other. One of them has to lose. If you don't want that to be you, don't make a thoughtless list and play against someone who has actually put work into theirs, and don't blame other players for your inability to grasp the mechanics of the game and your faction.

If you just want to casually roll the dice with some friends or engage in more narrative style play, then do it. If you're a more competitive player, then play against other competitive players and don't curb stomp someone who is only looking for more casual play. Both are valid styles of play and much can be accounted for through communication before a match even begins, but being part of one camp or the other doesn't make you superior in any way.

This is the way I remember it too. But, it also points out the issue at the core of the OP's comment, I think. WAAC is a subjective term, as is this CAAC. I have played in tournaments and enjoyed myself. But, 90% i'd rather play a narrative style game. That doesn't mean there aren't objectives and people aren't trying to win, what it means is that the armies fit (as best as possible) the fluff. Back in the day, all special characters required your opponent's permission. I liked this because it generally meant that if the person accepted your army with a special character, then they were going to play a more competitive list themselves (not always the case, but mostly).

Lastly, I will point out that it may be a generational thing. A competitive list in the past was still strongly limited by the CAD (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support), so what made it competitive was that it was optimized (best units selected, best gear, etc.). Now, competitive means the best units, potentially across multiple codices, alpha strikes, gimmicks, finding flaws in the rules, etc. The former remained relatively fluffy, while the latter usually makes no sense in the fluff. To get to the point, many people want to play the old "competitive" and are more often met with the new "competitive," in my experience, although as always your experience may differ. Its a game, its your models, I think anyone you want to play it is fine. Communication with your gaming group, though, is always key!

The wrong thing is telling anyone they are enjoying the hobby as a whole wrong , yes I am willing to use that GW line, because they do not believe ,like GW, perfect balance is worth everything. On dakka in specific (tough also on other forums) there is a prevalent attitude that if it can' t beat the current tournament meta it is uselles.
Not to be confused with the less prevalent and more whiny attitutde List X beat me, please nerf.

Another attitude problem in general on forums (not so much IRL when finding games I noticed) is the complete disreagard of non-matched play games/ scenarios. There is a huge stigma against suggesting narrative or open play on fora. There is plenty of threads here discussing the balance and the latests ITC implications of CA approved but not about say planetstrike and fun ideas surrounding that theme.

Bring forth whatever you want and have a blast. Wether that is as a WAAC, CAAC, AAAC (anything at all cost) fine but don't go around telling people they are doing it wrong because they are not doing it you way.

Also I have played games with the express objective of losing, to teach my friends to play ,to test out new strategies, etc

I have used this term before, usually in the context of abusive combos. The reason why is simple: 40k isn't a competitive game at it's core, it never has been (I've followed this game since 1996 so everything post Rogue Trader). So the game cannot support "breaking" the game well; the game is not meant to deal with a lot of the combos that can be done (which is in and of itself a flaw of the game, but it exists nevertheless).

It's not so much that people who want to win (potentially at all costs) are doing it wrong, it's that warhammer requires a social contract to ensure fun; if you have two high-end tournament players going against each other, this social contract might be "Bring the cheesiest thing you can". If you have two narrative/casual (potentially at all costs) players, that social contract might be "Let's bring only forces that would be realistic to have for this battle". Neither are wrong. It's when you have the competitive player face the casual player that you have the problem, because they want different things and the social contract cannot be agreed upon.

It is my belief that warhammer cannot properly handle competitive gaming in the sense that people seem to want. The rules are convoluted and typically require copious amounts of applying intent (i.e. RAI) to determine what something means, and taking it at face value (i.e. RAW) can lead to ridiculous combos or arguing minutiae (as an example of this: Chapter Approved reworded the character targeting rules in such a way that it never states it's the wounds characteristic; it could be read as wounds remaining i.e. if Mortarion fell below 10 wounds, suddenly he cannot be targeted. It's anyone's guess at the moment what the real answer is). The armies are intrinsically imbalanced such that picking a particular army might result in it being virtually unplayable (if you're lucky, maybe there is a mono-build that can work which guts any semblance of choice as you are basically using a predefined list and can never deviate from that) or, on the flipside, might be incredibly good, seemingly at random. There are a plethora of options which, even within a particular codex, range from "always take" to "never take" to everything in between, thereby invalidating entire things that literally have no reason to even be there because something else is cheaper/better in every way.


These are the hallmarks of a game that at best requires copious amounts of modification to the rules to be usable in the way that people want (i.e. as a tournament/competitive focused game), up to and including hard or soft bans (more on this in a moment) or, at worst, is completely unsuitable due to fundamental design issues of being able to really function at that level; sure, you can make it resemble something like a tournament game, but all the issues compound that.

David Sirlin (author of "Playing to Win") has a very good chapter of his book that discusses things in the context of what should be banned: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned

Of note is the criteria of what should be banned, and then an example from Street Fighter 2 (which is what he is known for as a top competitive player):

The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game

I would argue that 40k suffers a lot from this very thing. There are common things you see across all tournaments and armies, even if the exact composition of said armies differ. Often, but not always, these things get nerfed, but should there be more? There are things that exist in 40k which are so far and away better than anything else in the game, that they invalidate huge swathes of the game by existing. However also note that Sirlin would likely consider 40k to be a game not worth pursuing:

The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.

Ignoring that fact though, he has this gem regarding bans, again using Street Fighter as an example. Street Fighter 2 Turbo has its hidden "god" character, Akuma. Sirlin writes:

Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken" in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn't designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since.

This sounds, in perhaps a lesser regard, like a lot of things in 40k. And especially like a lot of the broken combos people find. The game is not designed to handle some of these combos (which is and of itself a flaw of the game design) so using them makes things better than virtually everything else. Sirlin also mentions how Japan, unlike the USA, does not hard ban Akuma but enforces a "soft ban" by refusing to use him (a gentleman's agreement/social contract, basically) because it makes the game better if you don't have everything be Akuma vs. Akuma just because he's "the best" character in the game.

There's also more talk about a soft ban on a different character which does NOT break the game like Akuma does, which reveals something I really think can apply to Warhammer. In this case, the ban refers to "Old Sagat":

The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

Bold and italic for emphasis. This is where I think the comparison to 40k can be made, as nothing, not even the abusive combos really "breaks" the game. However, they have the same effect as "Old Sagat" does: They make several other factions/lists unviable by existing. The game is better and has more variety without them. In this case, you want to ban/restrict things not because they are truly "broken" but because they invalidate swathes of the game that otherwise would be viable to pick and use. I think the analogy of Old Sagat is very apt to 40k because that's often the situation that you run into, rather than with Akuma where it outright breaks the game (after all, we usually don't see the equivalent to Akuma vs. Akuma in 40k tournaments, but you do see the Old Sagat effect in that because X is allowed, Y and Z just don't get played because they can't be viable as long as X is there.

Sorry for the very long-winded post but I feel these analogies are very relevant to the discussion. A competitive game doesn't always mean allow anything and everything that's legal; sometimes it's on the players themselves to enforce a soft ban to encourage more variety in what you can play to ensure a better game overall. If it's okay for a real e-sport with professional tournaments to do it (which Street Fighter is, still) then it should be okay for a tabletop game that has ambitions to be viewed in a similar light to do it as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I had hoped that the introduction of Open play, Narrative Play and Matched play would have eliminated these types of... conversations.

Subjectively, an individual is either an enjoyable opponent or they are not - you decide for your own reason(s).

/thread

The problem with this is that one way is pitched as "fair" (i.e. Matched) and two are pitched as "Unfair" (i.e. Open/Narrative). People will gravitate towards the fair option rather than run the risk of an unfun game (which often means "not symmetrical forces with identical objectives") so while GW can tout three ways to play, there is really only one in 99% of cases because Open is basically just codifying "you can change the rules" and Narrative really means "Attacker/Defender scenarios". Matched has basically killed the other modes of play in AOS and 40k both simply by virtue of being pitched as the "balanced" choice, which implies the other options are not balanced and for many people, fun is directly tied to balance (equal points, equal objectives, equal everything)

having decades of games going behind me at this point I could care less if a person is waac or caac as long at they are honest.

don't cheat/ add and make up rules and/or claim wargear is different than it is especially against.

be honest about your list. if you just brought a random fun list say that, but if your random fun to play list is basically a tournament level net list, or you are running big bobby G and a motorcade... well that means I am going to bring out a tournament level list as well.

anymore I pull out 3 lists and labeled casual/themed, mid strength and tournament. once I see my opponents list I will select the power based on where they stand. aiming for a fairly even power match (blowouts I find unfun, I want a close game every time)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....

But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.

And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.

That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?

I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.

IMO 3 of any "big" unit like that is pretty WAAC. Diversify your army! I shouldn't feel forced to bring 20+ lascannons just to try and stand a chance in a regular game. It becomes more of a bland rock paper scissors match when that happens and that isnt fun for anyone.

Ehh its not really all that WAAC

Lazy maybe (i mean id love to have an army with 3 models so i dont need to move much or remember too much)

but not WAAC

That was a very good read Wainiac. And I agree, Warhammer40k as some "Old Sagat" units and combos. And in some cases, some Akumas, like the Stormraven spam at the first month of 8th.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I don't believe that CAAC's are really a thing; if someone says to you that they don't care about winning games, then they're lying to you to save face, or they're being disingenuous to themselves. You should always be playing to win - just never at the expense of the fun. I like to call that hardcore-casual


And this is the problem with this argument; the very core ideals of TT wargaming is collecting an army and playing games with it, so it'd be idiotic to say that collecting what you want to collect is the wrong way to go about the hobby. It's just about the only advice that I will give to new hobbyists, because at the end of the day they'll [hopefully] be painting the miniatures they're buying and proudly displaying them on a shelf when they're not playing with it.

Equally, competitive play within the hobby with optimised lists and playstyles should not be shunned by the community; it's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, just like taking what you like and making an army out of it is. As long as people are playing competitively and having fun doing so, then it can't be deemed a problem in the community by others who do not play the same way - the problem comes when these two camps mix.

The easiest solution to avoid any problems within your personal community (if that is the issue the OP is raising here) is to gauge the people you're playing against as people who are looking to play casually, and people who are looking to play competitively. Don't bring a casual list to a competitive game, and vice versa. As for people in the community at large who complain about casual players/competitive players, I think those people are simply missing the one true rule of the hobby - that you can collect and play it however you wish.

Believe me, CAAC is a thing. there's a few people I know around the area that will call people out for things like MSU's and complain that too many people play Space Marines (and by extension, CSM). People who are terrified of tournaments will extend that thoguht process anything they think is beyond casual.

 supreme overlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....

But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.

And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.

That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?

I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.

IMO 3 of any "big" unit like that is pretty WAAC. Diversify your army! I shouldn't feel forced to bring 20+ lascannons just to try and stand a chance in a regular game. It becomes more of a bland rock paper scissors match when that happens and that isnt fun for anyone.

I built it because it's fluffy, and 3 unscreened tanks in 8th edition 40k get creamed by real WAAC lists.

If I try to play competitively I get yelled at for not screening the tanks / not bringing repairs / not bringing enough plasma scions / any number of other things. So that's how I know it's not WAAC XD

Not sure what it is though. You're right about it not being fun for my opponents! I recognize that and am adjusting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 supreme overlord wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....

But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.

And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.

That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?

I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.

IMO 3 of any "big" unit like that is pretty WAAC. Diversify your army! I shouldn't feel forced to bring 20+ lascannons just to try and stand a chance in a regular game. It becomes more of a bland rock paper scissors match when that happens and that isnt fun for anyone.

I built it because it's fluffy, and 3 unscreened tanks in 8th edition 40k get creamed by real WAAC lists.

If I try to play competitively I get yelled at for not screening the tanks / not bringing repairs / not bringing enough plasma scions / any number of other things. So that's how I know it's not WAAC XD

Not sure what it is though. You're right about it not being fun for my opponents! I recognize that and am adjusting.

Backing that up. 3 Super Heavy units aren't too scary. What IS scary, is 3 Super Heavy units screened by dozens of models.

I thought the 3 playstyles were made exactly to cope with this situation?

Matched for the WAACs
Narrative for the midrun
Open for the CAACs

Hmm. 3 baneblades
Magus & Primus
Mindcontrol
Baneblade #1 shoot baneblade #2 on turn 1
Rince and repeat each turn
Only deploy next set after first one gets killed
I love it when opponent sinks huge points into one model.
Even more fun if they complain that the model did to much damage in one shoot phase. Hmm. . .

Yes but there is a severe anti-narrative bias in the midrun.

Not everyone is going to see this as an ideal solution, but one way to weed out a lot of the cheese exploited by WAAC type players would be for everyone to have a higher standard when it comes to painting and proxies. If TOs enforced some kind of standard like 3-5 colors + shade + highlight and strict WYSIWYG rules for stand ins, the kind of players who strictly want to cheese out whatever exploitable flaw exists in the rules that month would largely fade away. Making painting part of tournament scoring would be a good idea, as well, even if it were worth as much as half your total points.

Don't play games with unpainted minis and don't play against people who haven't painted theirs. That may seem kind of elitist and biased against people who don't enjoy or can't afford to have the proper models and fully paint them, but that's kind of the point. If you want to play you've got to put your money and time where your mouth is and actually invest in your army and list, instead of just being able to buy or proxy whatever unit is the best in the meta and throwing it on the table.

But then you would be seen as snobby and which point you are being PaaC



The real way to deal with the cheese exploits is to let them do it, and actually fix it as it comes up. like in the CA ever 6 months.

True WaaC players are the best people to find these kinda things.

and the net listers are the people that spread it like wild fire.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I thought the 3 playstyles were made exactly to cope with this situation?

Matched for the WAACs
PL for the midrun
Narrative for the CAACs

This mentality is the exact problem that the community is experiencing as a whole. There are ultimately two playstyles - casual and competitive. A cheating feckwit and un-fun player can fit into both of those playstyles, and yet the actions of a few within those groups are being used to brand the hobbying community as a whole. Just doesn't add up.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Believe me, CAAC is a thing. there's a few people I know around the area that will call people out for things like MSU's and complain that too many people play Space Marines (and by extension, CSM). People who are terrified of tournaments will extend that thought process anything they think is beyond casual.

I think the correct term for those people are s

I consider myself a Casual player through and through - I have no desire to play in a competitive tournament, or play competitive 40k overall, and I actively encourage people to play the game casually if they're unsure what route they want to go down. That level of complaint however is reserved for someone who has their knickers in a twist and has forgotten that TT wargaming can be played however you wish to play it.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I don't believe that CAAC's are really a thing; if someone says to you that they don't care about winning games, then they're lying to you to save face, or they're being disingenuous to themselves. You should always be playing to win - just never at the expense of the fun. I like to call that hardcore-casual


And this is the problem with this argument; the very core ideals of TT wargaming is collecting an army and playing games with it, so it'd be idiotic to say that collecting what you want to collect is the wrong way to go about the hobby. It's just about the only advice that I will give to new hobbyists, because at the end of the day they'll [hopefully] be painting the miniatures they're buying and proudly displaying them on a shelf when they're not playing with it.

Equally, competitive play within the hobby with optimised lists and playstyles should not be shunned by the community; it's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, just like taking what you like and making an army out of it is. As long as people are playing competitively and having fun doing so, then it can't be deemed a problem in the community by others who do not play the same way - the problem comes when these two camps mix.

The easiest solution to avoid any problems within your personal community (if that is the issue the OP is raising here) is to gauge the people you're playing against as people who are looking to play casually, and people who are looking to play competitively. Don't bring a casual list to a competitive game, and vice versa. As for people in the community at large who complain about casual players/competitive players, I think those people are simply missing the one true rule of the hobby - that you can collect and play it however you wish.

I'd like to counter your initial statement to say that I have purposely lost many games because the other player was having a terrible time. My goal for all my games is to have fun. If one side is experiencing crushing defeat (and not necessarily because of bad play, merely bad luck) I will subtly alter my style, make a few tactical errors, and of course, remain friendly. I'm not having fun if my opponent is not having fun. The game should be a mutual experience for everyone in my opinion, and crushing someone and drinking their tears is not something that appeals to all but the most alpha of dogs. Coincidentally I do a great job getting new players into the game....

That's not saying i'm not looking to win, I do enjoy it if I do, but I want to make sure that its an enjoyable experience for all. Besides, we only grow through learning from failures, never through winning without introspection.

Maybe I'm weird, but I have made a point to not play people who go above and beyond the call to make the most hyper competitive lists. I know that some people are programmed to WIN WIN WIN despite all costs, and I know that sometimes losing is a better alternative in the long term.

I also am not a huge fan of radically altering the game beyond anything that is sensible (like some of the goofy stuff in 7th, like where did flamers hit ruins? etc.), and I rarely have a problem with letting a player do something they forgot to do if it is going to be catastrophic to their play if they didn't. I also hate it when people take soup lists and stuff like "this is my catachan detachment and my cadian detachment and my tallarn detachment" so as to milk the most out of the rules instead of having a little pride in "my boys are all Valhallan and they won't dare play as another army!"

Am I casual? yes. Am I terrible at this game? Very likely. Have I considered buying a Ushanka to wear when I play my Valhallans at a tournament? Definitely

 Desubot wrote:
But then you would be seen as snobby and which point you are being PaaC



The real way to deal with the cheese exploits is to let them do it, and actually fix it as it comes up. like in the CA ever 6 months.

True WaaC players are the best people to find these kinda things.

and the net listers are the people that spread it like wild fire.

People seem to be using a different example of WAAC then I'm usual with, given that WAAC players tend to outright cheat, fudge the rules, and do anything to "Win At All Costs"

Well kinda.

yeah competitive players and Waacs are diffrent though not exclusive things. WaaCs are the ones that often try and abuse rules wordings and sequencing and the likes.

thats kinda what i was going for.

 Vector Strike wrote:
I thought the 3 playstyles were made exactly to cope with this situation?

Matched for the WAACs
PL for the midrun
Narrative for the CAACs

Nope, they're there to confuse the issue, and make it seem like GW is catering to different playstyles.

Points or power level aren't for different levels of competitiveness. They for quick and dirty list building or precise list building. Either caters to being abused competitively, or being entirely casual about the game.

Narrative and casual are definitely not synonyms. While narrative games can be planned and played casually, they often require a great deal of work, especially to plan it out in a way that's actually fun for everyone involved. rather than intentionally or accidentally turned into one player's power fantasy.

In short it isn't about points (or the lack of them) but rather, as always, people.